Hi @Shayn,
Thank you very much for your very clear response and, especially, for inviting me to suggest a concrete use case.
Your response prompted me to refine my thinking further. I fully agree with you on one essential point: when a correction concerns an individual article, it should remain associated with the DOI of that article. My question concerns rather post-publication corrections that relate specifically to the issue itself, rather than to any of the individual articles it contains.
Looking more closely at this distinction, several very practical situations seem possible: an incorrect publication date 
at issue level, an incorrect volume or issue designation, or an error in the attribution of an Editor or Guest Editor of a special issue.
Let us take the latter example. Suppose a special issue is published with an incorrect attribution of its Guest Editor, and the error is discovered after publication.
The issue needs to be corrected, but none of the articles it contains has been modified.
The authors of those articles are not responsible for the error 
, and the scientific content of their work remains entirely unchanged.
It would therefore not seem appropriate to make such a correction visible through the Crossmark records of the articles. Doing so could give readers the misleading impression that the articles themselves had been corrected, whereas the error occurred exclusively at the editorial level of the issue.
This is where I find the distinction already present in the Crossref metadata model particularly interesting. If Crossref already distinguishes issue-level metadata from article-level metadata, it seems useful to preserve the same granularity when recording significant post-publication corrections. An error belonging exclusively to the issue record should ideally be corrected and tracked at issue level, without altering or marking the article records as corrected.
In other words, the distinction could follow a fairly simple principle:
Article-level error → article-level correction → article DOI
Issue-level error → issue-level correction → issue DOI
This distinction seems important because the two objects do not necessarily carry the same metadata responsibilities. The issue DOI can carry information specific to the issue, whilst the article DOIs carry their own bibliographic metadata and identify their relationship to the relevant volume and issue. Consequently, when information belonging exclusively to the issue needs to be corrected, it should ideally be possible to correct and track that 
object without artificially creating a correction event for the articles.
Crossref can, of course, update the metadata associated with a DOI by redepositing the corrected information. My question is therefore less about the ability to correct the metadata than about the **ability to make the correction event visible 
and **traceable at the precise level at which it occurred, in the way that Crossmark currently does for the objects it supports.
This question of granularity may also become increasingly important for the reuse and analysis of post-publication event data.
Recent work on quantitative research-integrity indicators (See the reference below 
) illustrates this broader development. For example, Meho’s recent paper in Scientometrics proposes the Research Integrity Risk Index (RI²), a composite indicator incorporating retractions alongside publications in delisted journals and abnormal self-citation.
I should emphasise that RI² does not use Crossmark corrections. I mention it only to illustrate a broader development: events relating to research integrity and changes to the scholarly record are increasingly becoming structured data that can subsequently be aggregated and analysed.
From this perspective, knowing that a post-publication event has occurred is useful, but knowing which object was actually corrected, and at what level, is also important.
An editorial or production error affecting an issue should not result in a scientifically unchanged article appearing to have been corrected. Maintaining this distinction could also help future analyses identify more accurately the nature and origin of corrections — scientific content, author-related issues, metadata, editorial processes, production, and so forth. The appropriate corrective actions would clearly differ depending on the level and root cause of the error.
I would therefore summarise the use case as follows:
to provide a transparent history of significant corrections relating specifically to an issue DOI, whilst preserving a clear distinction between issue-level corrections and corrections affecting individual articles.
The purpose would not be to replace or aggregate article-level Crossmark records at issue level, but rather to preserve the granularity of the object being corrected.
I fully appreciate your point about whether this use case is sufficiently common to justify additional complexity in the schema. I simply wanted to offer this concrete scenario in response to your question.
If you think this use case and the question of correction granularity may be useful, I would be very grateful if you could pass this feedback along to @PFeeney for consideration.
Thank you again for your thoughtful response and for giving me the opportunity to explore the question further 
.
Kind regards,
Prof. Nadia Boutaleb
Crossref Ambassador for Morocco and the MENA Region
Meho, L. I. (2025). Gaming the metrics: bibliometric anomalies in global university rankings and the research integrity risk index (RI²). Scientometrics, 130, 6683–6726. Meho, L. I. (2025). Gaming the metrics: bibliometric anomalies in global university rankings and the research integrity risk index (RI²). Scientometrics, 130, 6683–6726. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05480-2
Is there currently a supported method for enabling Crossmark on a journal issue DOI, or is Crossmark intentionally limited to article-level records?